DEFENDED CASES.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 418, 29 January 1909, Page 9

DEFENDED CASES.

(Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) A BETTING TRANSACTION. BACKING "DOWNFALL" AND "PENATES." A letting transaction of a rather unusual nature was the basis of a claim in which John. Kemp, of Wellington, , joiner, and Peroy Maxwell Cameron, of Wellington, clerk, sued George Owler, of Roseneath, engine driver, for £51. The statement of claim set' out (1) That the defendant, pursuant to tho instructions of the plaintiffs, invested the sum of £1 at a tgtalisator meeting at Christcburch on November 7, 1908, on Downfall, the winner of the New Zealand Cup, and received 6n behalf of the plaintiffs as the proceeds of the investment the sum .of £11 135.; (2) In further pursuance of the instructions of the plaintiffs, the defendant'invested the sum of £10 on a horse called Penates, the winner of the Stewards Handicap. The proceeds of the investment on Penates) it was alleged, amounted to £112. Defendant, it was stated, had only accounted to tho plaintiffs for £62 135.. wherefore plaintiffs sued for the recovery of tho balance, £51. -, • . ; , Sir. Bunny appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. Meredith for defendant. John Kemp, joiner, stated that he and plaintiff Cameron lad an interview with de- r fendant, with whom they worked, on November 6, and Cameron gave defendant £1, with instructions to put it on Downfall in the New Zealand- Cup, and,- in the event of Downfall winning, to withdraw the original £1 and. put the balance on Penates in > the Stewards' Handicap Downfall won and paid £11 135., and Penates also won and paid £11 4s. so, according to orders, defendant should have put £10 on Penates, and plaintiffs should nave received £112. _ The race was run tin the Saturday, and witness next saw defendant on Sunday evening, when he-came to (Witness's house and said he hoped he had done the right thing, as he had only put £5 on-Penates. Witness said he had not carried out tho instructions, and had a job to get any information out of defendant, who said he had paid expenses and made a few shillings over, but, he said further that he had backed no winners. Witness, then proceeded to cross-examine mm, with unsatisfactory results. To Mr. Meredith: Defendant was putting the money on as a friend, and was not gettin" any payment for it. Ho thought defendant should have, gone up to witness s house immediately he arrived from the south on the'Sunday'morning, instead of waiting until tho Sunday night. Percy M. Cameron, clerk, stated that, he gave defendant'£l on the above occasion to put on Downfall, with the'instructions as Btated by tho previous witness.' Witness could get no satisfaction out of defendant when ht saw him, .and had to drag out what he did got. • Defendant said he did not think Penates had a chance, and that was why he had -only put tho £5 on. \\ ltness and Kemp received £62 135., defendant paying the taoncy to Kemp in cash. George Owler, engine-driver, stated that plaintiffs gave him £1 to put on Downfall in the New Zealand Cup. He was to play up on Penates if Downfall won, but was to save a pound. Kemp said whatever won the Up would pay &. Downfall won, and witness put £5 on Penates, keeping tho balance, as he had not been told to put wy specie sum on Penates. Ho thought he was .doing the best thing for his.friends. He arrived back from tho races on the Sundaym6rning, and wont up to Kemp's and gave him the dividend on tie Sunday night. Witness was,not bemg paid, but was doing the bneiness to oWjge Kemp and Cameron. Kemp was wild because witness had not, put all up on Penates ex,C°To Mr.''Bunny: Witness had told Kemp when he came back, that he had done his best. Witness had a few shillings loft after the trip, and' had paid expenses. He backed two winners at meeting,, but did not know tho bookmaker he" bet \fctb. of-the exact '"sum of money-he received. His expenses for the trip totaled -Witness told Kemp to thought Penates ' never - had a Hia Worship, reserved his decision to February'4'to consider authorities and a nonsuit point raised by Mr. Meredith, that it had not .been proved that-more than £5 was put on the i totalisator or that more than the money 'handed' over was received iby defendant. • _,' V ,' > GRAZING FEES'. ' John Breen, carpenter (Mr. Weston) sued Thomas M'Carthy, settler (Mr. M'Lean), for £23 Bs. on account of grazing fees for a number of cows. , Defendant counter-claimed_for £20 9s. 6d. damages, on the ground—(l) That plaintiff represented that the property on which the cattle were grazed was fenced and that the cattle would not be able to escape; (2) that the property was not fenced; (3) that owing to plaintiff's negligence a number of defendant's cattle had from time to time escaped from the property and,been impounded, and two of them lost. J After a partial hearing the case was adjourned until Tuesday. (Before Mr. Vf. G. Riddell, S.M.) ) A JOHNSONVILLE CASE. John H. Haggerty. farmer, ' Johnsonvillo (Mr. Weston), claimed £6 9s. from Ivo Greer, carrier, Johnsonvillo '(Mr. P. W. Jackson), balance alleged,to be, due,to plaintiff fonthe agistment, feeding, and taking care of two horses belonging to _ defendant. After hearing evidence - at some length, his Worship gavo' judgment for the. plaintiff , for the amount claimed and costs I6sT CLAIM FOR,RENT. ' Chas. Pharazyii, sheepfarmer, Chas. Chapman, Elgar, sheepfarmer, and Maud Eleanor Fitzgerald (Mr.. Wedde) sued Robert Mumford, settler, Orangi'Kaupapa Road, Wellington (Mr. P. W.' Jackson), lor rent of a cottage at' Northland. After hearing evidence and .argument at some length, his Worship reserved his decision. ' , APPLICATION-FOR REHEARING. Application for rehearing was made on behalf of tho defendant in the case Inglis Bros, v. Norman Heath (trading as Norman Heath and Co:), in which ,case judgment for £14 12s. 9d. was given for plaintiffs by default on January 14. From, the statement made by Mr. Gray, who appeared in support of the application, and from an affidavit of the defendant, that owing- to the intervention of tho Christmas and New Year holidays and various absences from Wellington and pressure of business, the matter had been over; looked, and the case was called on whilst defendant was awaydn Auckland, defendant no 1? a'lpliedu'or a new licaiiug on ILu b >ouiiu that his absence from the Court and the fact that he was not represented at the hearing was inadvertent and unintentional. He now offered to pay the amount of the claim and costs into Court? as seourity to abide the event. His Worship (Dr. <M'Arthur)-granted the application upon Mr. Gray undertaking to pay tho security mentioned into Court. The date fixed for the rehearing was February 11. Mr. Meek represented the plaintiff.